Do you stand with the leader of the Democratic Party?

[Yo_Mama]

195. Maybe some of the President's most loyal supporters

think they are opposing him on this in their own, the country's, and ultimately his administration's best interests.

Just maybe, you know?

If we were to attack Syria, and it were to go sour, this administration would be deeply and forever tarnished.

People don't oppose the president for his moral position in this. They are looking at this pragmatically. There is widespread agreement that the use of chemical weapons is a war crime.

There are three basic parts of any tenable theory of just war:
1) The cause must be just,
2) Success must be obtainable, and by "success" it is meant that the cause of the war will be removed.
3) If you make war, you must wage it in such a way that you believe that you will succeed and that you will remove the cause.

Anybody who stops and thinks about the situation has to realize that 2 and 3 are the problems here, and would probably commit us to sending troops in if we are serious.

The reality of this thing is that since the military strategists don't think we can take out the chemical weapons without putting a lot of troops in this country, if we start a limited bombing campaign we may well be making this worse. If we weaken Assad and the rebellion gains, he may use them anyway. After all, he and his regime are going to be slaughtered if they lose. They're desperate.

If we go in and grab them, that removes one problem if we get them all (doubtful).

If we don't go in and the rebels win, then some highly unsavory people are going to get this stuff and who knows where it ends up?